byKathleen Stachowski who writes about animal rights at OtherNationsJustice.org where this article is cross-posted. I’ve added the Other Nations blog to the blog roll here. It’s a great blog so check it out when you get a chance – Cowgirl.

Dog fighter in training (ASPCA image) – click for story

Seventy percent of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of the animal protection movement–so says recent research–which leads me to think that the other 30% serve in the Montana legislature. Animals lost what should have been a couple of slam-dunks during the 2015 biennial session, but that’s not unusual in a state where the unofficial motto might be “if it’s brown, it’s down; if it flies, it dies; if it hooks, it cooks.” Wildlife are under constant siege from arrows, bullets, hooks, and traps, while laws protecting companion animals don’t have a prayer if they can be twisted–no matter how remotely in the exploiters’ minds–to hold rodeo and animal agriculture to some minuscule standard of decency.

In the ‘animals win’ column is the defeat of a bill strengthening Montana’s ag-gag law (defined here)–the Treasure State having passed one of the nation’s earliest (1991). This year, an attempt was made to add a quick reporting law, requiring witnesses to report animal cruelty within 24 hours or be charged with animal cruelty themselves (read SB 285 here). The bill’s Republican sponsor fretted that animal rights people, conducting undercover investigations in factory farms and other animal hellholes, would hang onto evidence to use when the time is right–he mentioned Christmas–to raise money and gain members (listen in here). The reality? Because gathering documentation that establishes a pattern of abuse happens over time, forced 24-hour reporting stymies the ability to build a case for prosecution. No time? No case. This bill got the Big Needle–and deserved it.

Another win for animals (and taxpayers) was the defeat of HB 179, a bill aiming to eliminate the ability of law enforcement to call on humane organizations to help with rescue and subsequent sheltering in alleged cruelty cases–think puppy mill busts or hoarding cases. Listen to the bill’s Republican sponsor as she conflates the Humane Society of the United States with your local rescue shelter and trots out the bogeymen of extremism and terrorist threats. Would Montana’s 2011 malamute puppy mill bust have even been possible without outside rescue operations and shelter organizations assisting law enforcement (video)? Or the epic rescue of 800 neglected sanctuary animals in Niarada beginning in late 2010? Putting this wacky bill down was the humane thing to do.

In the ‘animals lose’ column, a couple of significant defeats offset these wins, starting with the failure–yet again–of a commercial pet breeder regulation bill (Dem-sponsored HB 608). Montana remains one of several states without any regulation–which makes our huge, rural state with its abundant isolation (did you check out that malamute video?) and no oversight look good to exploiters. Enacting minimal standards to regulate large-scale breeders would seem like a no-brainer, but the American Kennel Club–the so-called “dog’s champion” –lobbied against the bill.

Exploiters also perceive the dreaded slippery slope: A few years ago, I attended a pro-horse slaughter seminar (offered, incidentally, by the sponsor of HB 179 before she ran for the legislature) where a Wyoming legislator told this whopper: “USDA is overregulating dog breeding to an incredible degree and it’s bleeding over: Well, we inspect dogs, why can’t we inspect sheep?” (Peruse these 33 pages of violations and inhumane but legalconditions at USDA-licensed breeding mills.) What kind of warped logic is this? Sheep aren’t even covered under the federal Animal Welfare Act when used for food and fiber, yet the fear of having inspectors look in on their welfare is so great that cash-crop companion animals must pay the price in suffering?!

Finally, a huge and shameful loss is the failure of bipartisan HB 378, yet another attempt to close the state’s dog fighting spectator loophole–a circumstance resulting from an omission in the original bill’s text. Montana remains the ONLY state where a spectator can legally attend a felony dog fight. Spectators matter because they enable dog fighting–making it lucrative (admission fees, wagers) and providing cover for criminal organizers who melt into the crowd if The Man shows up. “If you don’t have a penalty for being a spectator, everyone becomes a spectator,” said bill sponsor Rep. Tom Richmond, R-Billings. “It’s like a kegger where everyone scatters” (source). HB 378’s original language read,

A person 18 years of age or older who knowingly attends any exhibition in which animals are fighting for the purpose of sport, amusement, or gain is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined an amount not exceeding $1,500.

But even this was too much penalty for some on the committee, and ‘shall’ was replaced with ‘may’ while $1500 was reduced to $500. And still the bill failed in the Senate after passing the House. Why? For one senator, it was simple spite:

…Republican senator Debby Barrett…voted against the bill, (saying) the Humane Society’s involvement is what steered her away from the bill. “They are opposed to agriculture, rodeo and all sorts of things in Montana and this would just be one more incremental step in the door,” said Barrett. Barrett also went onto [sic] say that dog fighting is not common here in Montana. ~ABC FOX Montana

For others, it was the inability to think critically:

Republican Sen. Scott Sales said the bill was an unnecessary solution to a problem that…Montana does not have. He called the three-line proposal “code clutter.” Republican Sen. Taylor Brown said the measure was a “code creeper,” intended to introduce animal rights into law. ~Billings Gazette

Law enforcement, legal personnel, and animal control officers have repeatedly called for a spectator bill, asserting that spectators thwart finding and prosecuting fight organizers. How convenient that, when busts can’t be made, legislators like these have “proof” that dog fighting isn’t a problem! And suggesting that the bill’s intent was to sneak animal rights into Montana law is bald-faced ignorance when 49 of 50 states impose spectator fines, jail time, or both. It’s hard not to feel embarrassed for this senator–for all of them who threw animals (maybe even your companion dog and mine) under the bus for their petty biases, cruel selfishness, and inability (or worse–refusal) to evaluate facts and act for the public good.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Republican-sponsored SB 334, which redefined “fur bearers” (animals trapped for the commercial value of their fur) as “game animals” in an attempt to bring trapping in line with Montana’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to “harvest” wild fish and game–thereby thwarting any citizens’ ballot initiative to eliminate the cruel anachronism of trapping on public land. This wily bill made it clear to the governor’s desk, where the “unintended consequences” resulting from self-serving, legislative meddling moved him to harvest it with his veto gun.

Montana is often called the last best place, and it is–for criminals who fly under the radar, capitalizing on illicit gatherings where dogs (or roosters) rip each other to bloody shreds (graphic photos). It’s also one of the last best places for puppy millers who leave in their wake the living detritus of their cash crop–unhealthy, neglected animals and worn-out breeder moms facing physical and psychological problems for the rest of their lives. For the animals, Montana isn’t the last best place–it’s often just the last place.
_______________________________________________________________

Yawn. This never-ending PETA crap is tiresome. How about worrying about some real animal rights issues, like the continued slaughter of elephants in Africa and Asia? There are so much bigger fish to fry, than puppy mills in Montana. How about pigs? Another reason why the Democratic party continues to be doomed to irrelevance.

As a hunter and fisherman that has two dogs and a cat, who are all treated as part of the family, it is insulting that you lump both animal cruelty and legal ethical outdoor recreation together. i am a strong advocate against animal cruelty and support the laws that deal with it. You though are on the extreme in your rant against hunting and fishing. I do not know what you expect to gain when you alienate your allies because of your extreme views. People like you are more of a hindrance than a help. You remind me of the quote ” no matter which side of an argument you are on there is always someone you wish was on the other side”. You are no better than the teabagger zealots who you are ranting about.

I agree with you flatheadprogressive. As a pet owner, a hunter and fisherman, my family and I enjoy our time with Montana’s wildlife. Trying to smear the men, women and children who actively support and actually care about Montana’s wildlife by accusing us of animal cruelty will not work. The sportsmen and women of Montana have, and we always will, provide our money and our time and our efforts to protect and preserve our wildlife heritage. People who write drivel like this are on the wrong side of history.

“Wildlife are under constant siege from arrows, bullets, hooks, and traps,”

If by “constant”, you mean a temporary frame of time declared by law that is according to the definition of the word, not constant, then sure.

Within its own definition “siege” requires the blockade or prevention of free movement. The chief ethical consideration of hunting in Montana is fair-chase – antithetical to the definition of the prior.

Hunting and fishing has absolutely nothing to do with dog fighting. No really, nothing. Typically, when emotion goes up, content goes down. So I’m guessing the last sentence of the first paragraph is an outburst of frustration at the Montana Legisature. Join the club.

Instead we get a post that the vast majority of Montanans could get on board with, if not for the hyperbole.

Right off the bat, there is one very good reason the American Kennel Club should have and did lobby against HB608. The proposed statute funds itself on the operations and licensing fees paid by breeder license holders. It doesn’t take long to see that it holds reputable breeders financially accountable for those who aren’t reputable. Now, Sarah McLaughlin’s weepy little ditties to the side, ‘humane’ organizations also profit from the “exchange and transfer” of animals, as well as frequent public funding and donation. They benefit greatly when ‘bad breeders’ behave irresponsibly, both in financial and PR aspects of putting animals in people’s houses, which is what responsible breeding is all about. And their $ input to these regulations is … crickets.

Bad law is any law which encourages responsible people to break it because they are somehow accountable whether they break the law or not. HB608 was bad proposed law.

This is an unpopular pet-peeve of mine, but it does relate when discussing how we all care so much for animals. Anyone who grows up rural understands that neutering (generic term for de-sexing) an animal renders it incapable of proper growth. For food animals, we don’t really tend to care. But horses gelded too early, oxen castrated too soon, are poorly suited the tasks we require of them. The animal is broken, hurt, harmed. It does not grow according to it’s genetics. But the Humane Society of the US, sister to the ASPCA and recipient of money precisely when bad breeders cause a crisis, have a policy to damage animals in just that manner at the earliest possible opportunity. As young as 9 weeks, animals are castrated and spayed, their internal organs necessary for proper development are sliced away, and those organizations face no consequence for what is (my opinion) animal abuse. Reputable breeders don’t do that. They sell pet grade animals with contract to get the animal fixed (broken) at the appropriate age for proper development.